Jump to content

Pres. Oaks and "Black lives matter"


Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Applying it to the topic at hand, do you believe that our police forces today are systemically racist to the point they must be abolished, as some radicals are calling for?

No.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is funny, most white people don't seem to have a problem seeing systemic discrimination/racism when it applies to them, but they throw a fit when people of color suggest that systemic racism exists, discriminating against them.  

That's the first time I've heard it said that most white people take that stance. Are you referring to quotas (AA) for college entrance? Otherwise, do you have other examples?

It should be noted also that a statistical disparity in and of itself is not necessarily evidence of systemic racism. Are you saying that housing industry practices reflect systemic racism? What is it about those practices that make it racist? Do you know?

Edit: We should be careful not to conflate racism with disparities in socio-economic status. 

Edited by Vanguard
  • Like 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, MorningStar said:

Every situation is different and they have to make judgments based on distance, whether the person appears to be on certain drugs,etc. Years ago my brother was called to a scene where a mentally ill man was standing on a car ranting and raving. As a precaution, my brother had his hand over his taser and then the man yelled, "I HAVE A GUN!" as he reached into his pants. My brother thought, "Oh crap! I have my hand on the wrong weapon!" There wasn't a fraction of a second to spare, so he tasered the man and it turned out he did not have a gun. His family said, "We wouldn't have blamed you if you had shot him." 

When i read this I randomly thought of the pixar movie the Incredibles. You have these heroes that get banned because what they were doing was causing too much damage to the city and the people decided they didn’t need/want heroes any longer. It’s done jokingly but i think there’s actually a point there. When a black man was killed blocks away from where my black siblings were being raised in suburban UT, nothing was done. I had an acquaintance who was helping the family work on the case and had worked on things involving police officers before. He was noticeably disturbed by the breeches in protocol afterwards. It was slowly and carefully finding means to tuck the shooting away. Meanwhile my brother learned that people will see black people as a threat and that they may cause harm or trespass to his rights based on those underlying assumptions. One action caused far more grief and harm to the system as a whole than the singular assumed heroics of a police officer in a moment of confusion. 
 

  We have a culture that extols or gives exception to heroic violence and actions to control and contain perceived threats as the solution. Yet other cultures are able to maintain relative order and safety in their society with a far lower death rate by police. (See link below) Personally I find myself looking more as to what makes and maintains more peaceful societies. And i find myself wondering what we are missing in the US and how we can breech that gap so that everyone actually feels safe in our society. 
 

I don’t hate the police. I really don’t. I Believe that policing has a place jn functioning societies. But in the system we are currently in I don’t trust them and many in the black community outright fear them because of the actions we’ve been witness to. And that’s a problem that will likely take some fundamental shifts both in how we see the job of police and how we see and implement justice/mercy in our society. 
 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country

with luv, 

BD 

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
10 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

 Are you referring to quotas (AA) for college entrance? 

Click on the link.

12 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Are you saying that housing industry practices reflect systemic racism? 

That is what President Oak claims.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Interestingly a God proposition leaves each individual to interpret internal direction as if it's from God. 

The judeo-christian ethos is not an "internal direction."  That's rather the point.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The critiques here are just silly because of that. 

"That" being . . . what, exactly?

The Bible is not an "internal direction."  It is an external and superior authority, an arbiter that differentiates right from wrong.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If God is working on the individual,

Yes.  Through individual and communal means.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

internally directing that which is good,

Where are you coming up with this?  God is externally directing it, too.  

You seem to be projecting here.  Korihor-esque theories that reject an external and superior arbiter is your position, not ours.  I-get-to-do-whatever-I-want-ism is your thing, not ours.  I-am-my-own-personal-arbiter-of-right-and-wrong is your theory, not ours.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

and we are to individually decide if it is God,

No.  No.  The I-as-an-individual-am-the-sole-and-ultimate-arbiter-of-right-and-wrong is the bread and butter of secular humanism.

Religionists submit themselves to an external set of laws and commandments.  We didn't invent them, but we agree to abide by them.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

then that is not much different then the critiques just offered. 

The "ifs" don't stand up very well.

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The benefit on my side, of course, is reason wins out. 

"Reason" that is based on . . . the judeo-christian ethic.

 

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

With God one has to square a bunch of nonsense with things like common sense.  

Again, this is the convenient part of secular humanism, which is built on the very ethos it purports to reject.  And when it's not based on that ethos, we get things like the death and misery of hundreds of millions of the various atheistic regimes of the 20th century.  Hitler.  Stalin.  Mao.  Pot.  

The judeo-christian folks have been far from perfect, certainly.  Many wrongs have been committed in the name of Christian religions, for example.  But I think the Christians have learned from the errors of the past.  The Crusades are very much in our rearview mirror.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
20 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

But you continue to speak of "systemic racism" in a much broader, more generalized sense. 

No, I'm not. 

I am simply suggesting that "systemic discrimination" (as he described it) is an example of systemic racism in America. 

"Systemic racism in America" means . . . what?  What is/are the system(s)/institution(s)?  What is/are it/they doing that is "racist?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

@smac97, @Scott Lloyd, @pogi

How about, for the sake of this particular discussion, we use this for a definition: "Systemic racism is policy (written or not, intentional or not) that maintains inequities that correspond to skin color."

Way too vague.  Overbroad.  No terms are defined.  No limiting principle.

Plus, I still don't know what the "system" or "institution" is that is being referenced here.

I'm not being obtuse.  I really want to understand what is being said here.  Allow me to illustrate:

I have been a lawyer for some years now.  I have come to appreciate the U.S. legal system.  Though it is far from perfect, it's much preferable to anarchy, tyranny, etc.  Anyone who has a legal dispute has access to the courts.  However, that person needs to be able to articulate a coherent set of facts and applicable laws in order for the judge or jury to render a decision.

Take, for example, "fraud."  It's a simple word, and it gets tossed around all the time.  But a generic and elastic definition of the term won't do, so the court's have formulated a multi-part analytical framework for whether or not a legal claim can be presented to the court as one for "fraud."  For example, in Utah the elements of fraud are: "(1) a representation; (2) concerning a presently existing material fact; (3) which was false; (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he [or she] had insufficient knowledge on which to base such representation; (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it; (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity; (7) did in fact rely upon it; (8) and was thereby induced to act; (9) to his [or her] injury and damage." 

These definition has been developed and refined over many years.  And it's a good one.  It kicks out unworkable or specious claims while allowing "actionable" claims to proceed.

I submit that we need a comparable definition for "systemic racism."  It's too vague and malleable on its own.  It's too susceptible to being abused for partisan or polemical purposes.  If there is, in the United States, a "system" or "institution" that in 2020 is engaging in "racist" behavior, then let's identify it and see what we can do to change and improve the situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, I think we need to acknowledget hat the primary problem is not with the individual officers.  "Bad apples" aside, law enforcement officers are trained in the use of force.  They are given rules and guidelines on the use of force and are required to abide by them.  Officers, then, are following policy established by people above their pay grade.  The issue, then, is with the policy, and the policy makers

Second, the policymakers include much more than police heirachies.  State and federal legislators (the "legislative" branches), state and federal politicians (the "executive" branches), and the state and federal courts (the "judicial" branches) are all heavily involved.  Anti-police yahoos apparently have plenty of time to criticize the police, but often have little to say about the policymakers to are formulating use-of-force policies and procedures (when was the last time you heard demands to "Defund the Legislature!" or "Defund the Mayor!"?).

Third, regarding "why they didn't go for tazing first," that's up to the policymakers.  See, e.g. here:

Rather than vilify the men and women of law enforcement who are following the law (the training they have been provided), we ought to examine and re-examine the merits of that training, and the policies and laws that pertain to them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Think there’s far more agreement than there isn’t on this point. My response throughput reading what you said was basically. Yes, and probs look at the policing system, safe guards, and measures as a whole too. Systemic ills usually entail more than one source of problem. And even if one party or voice has more weight, influence, or power it doesn’t remove the problem as a whole if the other parts of the system maintaining dysfunction aren’t addressed as well. 
 

with luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The scriptures testify that the great and terrible period of tribulation that was prophesied by the Savior — the worse period of tribulation for the saints of God that ever was or ever will be — is going to inevitably take place at some point in time

And we (humanity) will survive and then thrive as the Savior takes over.  Our prophets have counseled us we can have peace if we seek it. I believe them.  I don't think God needs or wants us in a panic or feeling helpless.

Edited by Calm
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
41 minutes ago, Jared Livesey said:

When we speak of systemic racism existing, then it seems we are saying:

  1. The system itself is biased against people by virtue of their ancestry, or
  2. The administrators of the system implement the system in a way that is biased against people by virtue of their ancestry, or
  3. Both.

Questions:

  1. Can anyone cite a current American example of a law biased against any particular race?
  2. Can anyone find a current American example of a racially-neutral law being wrongfully applied unequally towards any particular race?
  3. Can anyone find a current American example of both of these occurring at once?

Bonus questions:

For those who believe systemic racism exists, if it could be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that racially disparate outcomes are entirely attributable to the normal outworkings of economics and inheritable differences of abilities between races, would that be reason to reevaluate your position?  Why or why not?

And for those who deny systemic racism exists, if it could be shown that the normal outworkings of economics reliably lead to certain races winning and certain races losing when they are placed in certain competitive contexts by virtue of inheritable differences in abilities between races, would that inheritable racial imbalance be sufficient reason to reevaluate your position as to the desirability of economic competition?  Why or why not?

For a law not to be racist, it has to do more than be “neutral,” and recognize the existing inequities on its subject and correct them. For example, if we see inequity in employment and housing statistics, the policies (the law and supporting laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations and guidelines that enable the enforcement and abuse of that law) involved have to be analyzed and rewritten to correct that imbalance.

I think the real inequity is in opportunity (freedom) because anyone of any race, being human, can succeed and fail on his own merits once given the opportunity. “White privilege” is an example of that opportunity, which privilege, if applied across the board, would offer a merit-based system for all. More mediocre white people would fail and more capable people of color would succeed, and an equilibrium achieved.

The Church offers freedom and opportunity through the Gospel, welfare principles and various educational and self-reliance programs.

Link to post
19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Systemic racism in America" means . . . what?  What is/are the system(s)/institution(s)?  What is/are it/they doing that is "racist?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Please see President Oaks talk - "systemic discrimination in employment and housing".  

What are they doing that is racist?  They are discriminating based on race.  President Oaks clearly gave this as an example of racism.  He said it was "systemic" in "employment and housing". 

It is funny, you are accusing me of generalizing beyond what President Oaks said, but when I stick to exactly what he said, you try to get me to go beyond what he said. 

I am not going to bite. 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Think there’s far more agreement than there isn’t on this point.

It seems so.

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

My response throughput reading what you said was basically. Yes, and probs look at the policing system, safe guards, and measures as a whole too. Systemic ills usually entail more than one source of problem.

I agree.  The "bad apples" should be punished, of course, but otherwise I don't think police should be vilified for doing what they have been trained to do. 

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

And even if one party or voice has more weight, influence, or power it doesn’t remove the problem as a whole if the other parts of the system maintaining dysfunction aren’t addressed as well. 

Quite true.  Much of the dysfunction at the individual, family and community levels also needs to be addressed.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
8 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

"Systemic racism in America" means . . . what?  What is/are the system(s)/institution(s)?  What is/are it/they doing that is "racist?"

Please see President Oaks talk - "systemic discrimination in employment and housing".  

Saw it.

Quote

What are they doing that is racist?  They are discriminating based on race. 

This is a truism.  

Also, who is "they?"  What is/are the system(s)/institution(s)? 

And what is/are it/they doing that is "racist?"  We can't endlessly regurgitate definitions.  Let's get down to brass tacks.  What actions are you characterizing as "discriminating based on race?"  Who is doing these actions?  When?  Where?  How?

Quote

President Oaks clearly gave this as an example of racism. 

He referenced "systemic discrimination in employment and housing, publicized recently."

Okay.  What is he referencing here?  What events?  Where did they take place?  What "systems" or "institutions" have been involved?

Quote

It is funny, you are accusing me of generalizing beyond what President Oaks said, but when I stick to exactly what he said, you try to get me to go beyond what he said. 

I am not going to bite. 

No, I'm not asking you to do more generalizing.  I'm asking for more specifics.  Details.  Brass tacks.

Pres. Oaks was speaking generally.  I will take his generalizations as substantively correct. 

I'm not trying to bait you.  I'd like to better understand what you and others are saying about "systemic racism in America."  I'd like some concrete examples.  You spoke of "systemic racism in America." That means . . . what?  What is/are the system(s)/institution(s)?  What is/are it/they doing that is "racist?"  The who / what / when / where / why / how.  Just the facts, ma'am.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
5 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Certainly as our secular developed reason following certain principles like those from the Enlightenment beats against the dogma of religion, progress has been made.  But it's certainly not because of the dogma of religion.  It is because the outside world defeated the dogma that religion prized.  It certainly wasn't because of religion but in spite of religion.  

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, then.  I'm not sure what faith you subscribe to (if any), but the faith that I subscribe to teaches that "all truth may be circumscribed into One Great Whole."

Link to post
24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Click on the link.

That is what President Oak claims.  

Yes, I know that's what he claims. Your more recent posts IMO seem to have evolved from that and into a more substantive claim reflecting your own beliefs. Is that the case?

I do in fact believe he does mean systemic racism in our policies and laws - I just don't agree with him.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seems to me a systemic disease would be a fatal one. 

That is what we have doctors and medicines for when the body isn't strong enough to handle them itself.  It has been almost a century since we have had antibiotics.  I am a bit surprised you are unaware of them.

https://www.medical.theclinics.com/article/S0025-7125(06)00089-7/abstract

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1
Link to post
9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What is he referencing here?  What events?  Where did they take place?  What "systems" or "institutions" have been involved?

You are asking the wrong person.  I didn't make the claim.  "Systemic discrimination in employment and housing" are not my words.  But as you suggest, "I think he seldom is loosey-goosey in how he chooses his words, particularly as to important and sensitive topics."

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Pres. Oaks was speaking generally.  I will take his generalizations as substantively correct. 

Cool, so generally speaking, there is "systemic discrimination" (which is racism, a "truism" you acknowledge) in America.  

 

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You spoke of "systemic racism in America." That means . . . what? 

Again, see Oaks. You have already acknowledged that "systemic discrimination" is racism.  That racism can be said to be "systemic" then.  It happens in America.  Therefore, he gave an example of systemic racism in America.  You have already agreed with every part of that in the general sense.   I am not going to bite.   You are laying traps.   

Link to post
34 minutes ago, pogi said:
Quote

Are you saying that housing industry practices reflect systemic racism? 

That is what President Oak claims.  

He did not claim that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Way too vague.  Overbroad.  No terms are defined.  No limiting principle.

Plus, I still don't know what the "system" or "institution" is that is being referenced here.

I'm not being obtuse.  I really want to understand what is being said here.  Allow me to illustrate:

I have been a lawyer for some years now.  I have come to appreciate the U.S. legal system.  Though it is far from perfect, it's much preferable to anarchy, tyranny, etc.  Anyone who has a legal dispute has access to the courts.  However, that person needs to be able to articulate a coherent set of facts and applicable laws in order for the judge or jury to render a decision.

Take, for example, "fraud."  It's a simple word, and it gets tossed around all the time.  But a generic and elastic definition of the term won't do, so the court's have formulated a multi-part analytical framework for whether or not a legal claim can be presented to the court as one for "fraud."  For example, in Utah the elements of fraud are: "(1) a representation; (2) concerning a presently existing material fact; (3) which was false; (4) which the representor either (a) knew to be false, or (b) made recklessly, knowing that he [or she] had insufficient knowledge on which to base such representation; (5) for the purpose of inducing the other party to act upon it; (6) that the other party, acting reasonably and in ignorance of its falsity; (7) did in fact rely upon it; (8) and was thereby induced to act; (9) to his [or her] injury and damage." 

These definition has been developed and refined over many years.  And it's a good one.  It kicks out unworkable or specious claims while allowing "actionable" claims to proceed.

I submit that we need a comparable definition for "systemic racism."  It's too vague and malleable on its own.  It's too susceptible to being abused for partisan or polemical purposes.  If there is, in the United States, a "system" or "institution" that in 2020 is engaging in "racist" behavior, then let's identify it and see what we can do to change and improve the situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

Having read Elder Oaks' talk, can you identify a situation that needs to be improved, and consider how a good-faith, root cause analysis of policy contributing to it might be conducted?

Link to post
14 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Yes, I know that's what he claims. Your more recent posts IMO seem to have evolved from that and into a more substantive claim reflecting your own beliefs. Is that the case?

I do in fact believe he does mean systemic racism in our policies and laws - I just don't agree with him.

I do agree with him.  That is my only claim.  Thanks for having the integrity to at least acknowledge that he believes that systemic racism exists in America.  The twisting and contorting by others here is beyond me. 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

He did not claim that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh really?  Do you want to take this back then?

Quote

I think he seldom is loosey-goosey in how he chooses his words, particularly as to important and sensitive topics.

What do you think he meant by "systemic discrimination in employment and housing"?  To me his words speak plainly, and I agree that he doesn't speak loosey-goosey in his use of the word "systemic".   

 

Link to post
Just now, pogi said:
Quote

Pres. Oaks was speaking generally.  I will take his generalizations as substantively correct. 

Cool, so generally speaking, there is "systemic discrimination" (which is racism, a "truism" you acknowledge) in America.  

See, that's your gloss and embellishment.  That's not what Pres. Oaks said.  

Just now, pogi said:
Quote

You spoke of "systemic racism in America." That means . . . what? 

Again, see Oaks.

I've read his remarks.  Several times now.  They do not elucidate.

Just now, pogi said:

You have already acknowledged that "systemic discrimination" is racism.  That racism can be said to be "systemic" then.  It happens in America. 

And yet we go round and round about what "systemic" even means.

And Pres. Oaks did not say America is systemically racist.  That is your gloss/embellishment.

Just now, pogi said:

Therefore, he gave an example of systemic racism in America. 

He referenced "police brutality and other systemic discrimination in employment and housing, publicized recently."

I am not persuaded that the "system" he was referencing is "America."

Just now, pogi said:

You have already agreed with every part of that in the general sense.   I am not going to bite.   You are laying traps.   

I am not.  I was hoping to get past heated rhetoric and down to particular and specific actions by "systems" and "institutions" that are discriminatory/racist.  I want to identify such things and correct them.  If you are not interest in having a discussion along those lines, no biggie.  Nevertheless, I think the unwillingness/inability for us to get to the brass tacks is a big part of the problem. 

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

See, that's your gloss and embellishment.  That's not what Pres. Oaks said.  

That is what YOU said.  You are the one who said he was speaking generally.  You are the one who agreed that systemic discrimination is racism.  You are the one who agrees that it is happening in America.  Put the pieces together.  What am I missing here?

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And Pres. Oaks did not say America is systemically racist.  That is your gloss/embellishment.

No, that is your gloss/embellishment of what I said.  I said that there is systemic racism in America, and that President Oaks gave an example.  That is very different from saying "America (in general) is systemically racist.  I am suggesting that there are systems in housing and employment that are systemically racist in America.  That is one example. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

once given the opportunity.

The opportunity not only being that particular event (job offer for example), but being prepared to take advantage of it mentally, physically, and financially and socially now I think about it....  

Mentally is both education training, but also psychological preparedness.  Anyone who has been told they are lazy, bumbling, can't follow through, stupid, etc all often has trouble not letting those accusations alter how they see themselves, especially when such labels are given in childhood.  Mistakes are blown out of proportion, fears can even cause illnesses that get in the way of accepting opportunities when they come.  If an opportunity requires risk and one has no savings, one may not be able to leave a job to invest in professional development to get a better job later because there are immediate needs that current paycheck is needed for  And socially...we are social animals, moving into what others see as their own territory when they also see us as outsiders is very difficult and sometimes creates obstacles that can't be overcome (if a manager and all your workers refuse to work with you from the outset and the company doesn't back you because you were hired for appearance...that job becomes a much harder opportunity to take).

It is not enough to offer opportunities where we get to pat ourselves on the back for being so enlightened and then blame failure if it happens on the other if we don't invest time and resources into finding out what individuals or communities need to be able to go for that opportunity that has been given them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...